Soledad O'Brien: When did "tone" become more important than content?

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Soledad O'Brien
@soledadobrien
Serious question—why do we do this? When did “tone” become more important than content?

Connie Schultz
@ConnieSchultz
Post-debate, I’m hearing that we’re supposed to judge a 90-minute recitation of lies not by its content, but by the tone in which it was delivered. I’m with Walter on this one.
Image

[JI7]

1. Anything to give him points and normalize his shit

[Javaman]

2. because when you're desperate and "tone" is all you got, you go with it.

the right wing have scraped through the bottom of the barrel.

[Thomas Hurt]

3. tone equals equals being a manly, take charge leader who is owning the libs.

It is what the christofascists want to see...a combative, crass, in your face attack on the people they hate.

[JHB]

4. 2002-2003, when it was the excuse for ignoring people trying to avert the Iraq invasion

Probably even earlier, actually, but definitely by then.

[Bev54]

5. It became important when the proverbial bar hit the floor.

[Sentath]

6. The moment, the very instant,

when they realized they couldn't fight the content.

[RobinA]

7. Sometime Around Bush Jr

when content started to be harder to find. And certainly now and in 2016 with Trump, who doesn't have a bit of content to offer. How I long for the days when Gore said "lockbox" about 50 times. At least it was an idea.

[moondust]

8. Style over substance!!!!!

It's called Republicanism. The "business party" figured out long ago that they can sell a lot of stuff with nothing more than advertising so that became their focus. The reality TV hoax "pResident" is a logical result of decades of training the public to accept that "image isn't everything--it's the only thing." And a party of one percenters can buy a lot of advertising with their tax cuts!!!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. 1960? Kennedy v. Nixon debate; Kennedy judged winner on TV, Nixon on radio

because Nixon looked shifty. He was, of course, but that was a visual judgement, not about content.

Of course, the moment I go looking for an article about it, I find a paper saying that was due to sample bias. From 2017:

Debunking Nixon’s radio victory in the 1960 election: Re-analyzing the historical record and considering currently unexamined polling data

Highlights
•
The presumed Nixon victory among radio audiences is likely the product of Republican bias in the sample.

•
Newly considered polling data shows that Nixon’s gains on the radio were only with Republican listeners.

•
There is little evidence that television worked to the advantage of Kennedy and the disadvantage of Nixon.

•
The 1960 election should not be read as a triumph of style over substance.


Abstract
It is widely reported that Nixon won the first of the 1960 presidential debates among radio audiences while Kennedy carried television viewers, and further that Kennedy’s victory translated to an electoral victory. It is thus assumed that style trumped substance when politics entered the television age. However, the Nixon radio victory emerged in only a single poll conducted by Sindlinger and Company. Considering other polling data reveals Sindlinger’s finding is likely the result of a Republican bias in the sample and not a mass defection of Democrats swayed by Nixon’s substantive arguments. Voters found Kennedy ahead on substance as well as style. Considering the full historical context of the election, there is little evidence that television worked to the advantage of Kennedy and the disadvantage of Nixon, nor even much evidence that Kennedy was considered more attractive. We find no evidence that the first debate was decisive; we find it dubious that the debates overall produced a 2-million vote swing for Kennedy; we find it implausible that the first debate can be linked in any meaningful way to the outcome of the election. We find it more meaningful that Nixon turned a 5-to-3 Republican disadvantage into a razor-thin contest and that he largely did so using television during the final two weeks of the contest. The 1960 election should not be read as a triumph of style over substance. Correcting the misguided dismissal of substantive argument is crucial work scholars can contribute to the broader democratic project.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0362331916300556

I am suitably admonished.